No, I’m not getting where they’re going at all, either. On the plus side, it isn’t paint-by-numbers tv. 
I’m pretty confident that there is a definite purpose behind the Sam/hooker scene that will play out later. What is it? Anyone’s guess is as good as mine. When Dean came back from hell, Sam made a point of saying that he doesn’t need to pay (for sex) so this is a very deliberate change in the character, I think. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.
The Sam-with-a-hooker scene didn’t really catch me by surprise. Last season, when Bobby and Dean came to see Sam after Dean came back from hell, they found Sam with a woman and Sam didn’t even remember the woman’s name. At that time it was funny as hell for me because it was something you would expect from A-Girl-At-Every-Port-Dean and not from Sensitive-Sam.
I agree though that what the scene is trying to show (a grimmer Sam) is related to whatever’s up with Sam. I’m very, very curious what Sam went through that changed him into someone who’s ok with seeing a child going through so much pain. Many have speculated that it’s really not Sam and I have to admit that I can think of no other reason other than that to account for Sam’s actions (or inaction) when Castiel was extracting the name of Balthazar. But Sam’s actions and behaviour in the past three episodes seem to indicate that that is not the case. I agree with the speculation about that it most likely has something to do with Sam’s being trapped in the cage.
The goddess of truth episode that they showed in last week’s Soon segment, is that gonna be this week? I ask because sometimes in the Soon segment they show scenes from multiple future episodes.
Wasn’t the girl in question Ruby 2.0, though? He lied about who she was for a while.
It was. He used a different name because he didn’t want Dean and Bobby to know it was Ruby, and she corrected him (with a different false name) because… well, for the funny.
I don’t think there’s any especial import to the hooker scene, other than “Wow, that’s out of character.” but I do agree that “Hell just wasn’t the big deal for me that it was for you” is a pretty good indication that Sammy Boy is seriously and profoundly wrong.
The thing is, Sam has ALWAYS been an ends-justify-the-means kind of person. He was ready to let Ruby sacrifice Nancy the virgin back in “Jus in Bello”, which freaked Dean out. (“Nobody’s killing any virgins!”) The only time he thought it was wrong was when Cas wanted to kill Jesse the anti-christ last year, and I think it was mostly because he obviously identified pretty strongly with Jesse, what with the mysterious powers and everyone expecting him to be evil. Sam actually has a pretty warped moral code, imho.
So I didn’t even think his willingness to let Cas hurt the kid was particularly out of character.
It’s like Hell converted him to their side through torture.
Well, he still doesn’t need to pay, apparently…though I did roll my eyes at that. Sam’s so good in bed the hooker wants to see him on her night off…:dubious:
Well, gotta play up the fantasy for the fangirls, I guess…